How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[Loudmouth]

About as much as a chimp is a juvenile gorilla.

So you agree that there are separate species of dinosaurs?

 

[pat34lee]

Okay, so how do we establish this?

By admitting that no creature crosses the 'kind' boundary.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope. My ancestry is pure human back to the creation.

Evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

From the source. Genesis.

Any evidence to back it up?

 

[Loudmouth]

By admitting that no creature crosses the 'kind' boundary.

What kind boundary?

 

[pat34lee]

So you agree that there are separate species of dinosaurs?

Did you even read the title of the article, much less
the article itself? Many named dinosaurs are not new
species, only different forms of the same ones. So
1/3 or more of dinosaur species never existed.

 

[pat34lee]

Any evidence to back it up?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=KJV

 

[Loudmouth]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=KJV

I asked for evidence, not the claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did you even read the title of the article, much less
the article itself? Many named dinosaurs are not new
species, only different forms of the same ones. So
1/3 or more of dinosaur species never existed.

That means 2/3 or more did exist, correct?

 

[The Cadet]

By admitting that no creature crosses the 'kind' boundary.

...But my assertion is that humans and apes are the same "kind" because, by your definition, they share a common ancestor. The fact that no creature crosses the "kind" boundary is not helpful to your case - everything alive is the same kind.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Nope. My ancestry is pure human back to the creation.

What is your explanation for human DNA being 96% similar to chimpanzees? What is your explanation for shared endogenous retroviruses? What is your explanation for a fused human chromosome #2?

 

[essentialsaltes]

"Okay, so how do we establish this?"

By admitting that no creature crosses the 'kind' boundary.

That's just an assertion. How do you establish that no creature has crossed the 'kind' boundary?

 

[pat34lee]

That means 2/3 or more did exist, correct?

?

 

[pat34lee]

...But my assertion is that humans and apes are the same "kind" because, by your definition, they share a common ancestor. The fact that no creature crosses the "kind" boundary is not helpful to your case - everything alive is the same kind.

You are assuming evolution before the fact.
No evolution, no common ancestor. Creation.

 

[pat34lee]

What is your explanation for human DNA being 96% similar to chimpanzees? What is your explanation for shared endogenous retroviruses? What is your explanation for a fused human chromosome #2?

Why is a Cadillac mostly similar to a Lincoln? Form/function.
2-3. Because.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Why is a Cadillac mostly similar to a Lincoln? Form/function.

Inconsistent comparison. Automobiles aren't living systems. Please answer the questions.

2-3. Because.

This is a non-answer. Can you explain what those facts mean?

 

[pat34lee]

Inconsistent comparison. Automobiles aren't living systems. Please answer the questions.
This is a non-answer. Can you explain what those facts mean?

If you couldn't understand 1, there is no way you would understand 2-3.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

If you couldn't understand 1, there is no way you would understand 2-3.

I explained to you why your answer in #1 was an inconsistent comparison. Also, answering a question with a question is Question dodging.

You evaded questions 2-3.
Are you unable to explain the questions asked? If you can't, just say so.

 

[bhsmte]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=KJV

Do you know the difference, between a claim and evidence?

 

[lasthero]

By admitting that no creature crosses the 'kind' boundary.

How can we admit that?

You still haven't given rigid definition of what a kind is. If we have two organisms, how can we tell if they're the same kind or not?